Tea Party Backed Candidates Only Won 32% of Races

For all the talk of the Tea Party's strength - and there will certainly be a significant number of their candidates in Congress - just 32% of all Tea Party candidates who ran for Congress won and 61.4% lost this election. A few races remain too close to call.

It's also important to distinguish between a candidate who is a tea-partier and those merely endorsed by tea-partiers. The tea-party can be said to have played a role in the wins of the first, but not necessarily the second. [More...]

Toward the end of this cycle, however, seemingly every Republican was trying to associate themselves this way. One left off the list was Dino Rossi, despite Jim DeMint endorsing him, since Tea Party groups backed Clint Didier in the primary.

By that standard, Scott Tipton's win over John Salazar wasn't a a "tea party" win. Sarah Palin backed his challenger, the tea party preferred candidate in the primary, and only endorsed Tipton in late September. Karl Rove, on the other hand, raised money for Tipton.

In the August primary, retired Army lawyer Bob McConnell was the preferred tea party candidate and Tipton’s main opponent. Some tea partiers viewed Tipton suspiciously as a member of the Republican establishment, but he refrained from criticizing McConnell.

anyone thinks that there is a shred of difference between the Tea Party and the Republican Party. They are one and the same.

The Tea Party - originally Tea Baggers - are a creation of the Republican Machine designed to reengage the public who rejected Republican political ideology resoundingly in 2008. They did a fantastic job of it, too.

But talking about these factions as anything other than as factions is naive. And it is dangerous in that the Tea Baggers who are going to take the mantle as we go forward are going to pull their Republican Party even farther to the right than most people could ever imagine.

from memory and from a few books off the shelf full of books on "Fighting Bob" La Follette, and especially the fifth volume of the marvelous History of Wisconsin, the volume by one the best historians on the Progressives, John Buenker, here's something I've pulled together:

In the mid-1890s, insurgents in the Republican Party began to challenge the traditional party leadership, the "Stalwarts." The insurgents tried to take the party nomination in 1894, and failed, but then began to gain a greater following when former Dane County DA and Congressman "Fighting Bob" La Follette followed with bids for the party nomination in 1896 and 1898. He took on the traditional target of rural farmers, the railroads, in the courts and in fiery speeches calling for a more direct democracy - including direct election of nominees in party primaries - that drew ever-larger crowds. Of course, so did his theatrical gesticulations, practiced for hours prior to his speeches/performances. Finally, in 1900, La Follette formed a coalition within the party - as he would again and again outside of the party - that took away the Stalwarts' hold on the nomination process, and he won the bid for the gubernatorial run. And then he won the race, in no small part owing to his speechwriter and campaign manager for the rest of his career as well: the first woman to graduate from the UW Law School, although she never practiced law because she ran the rest of his life, their future magazine, and much more: Belle Case La Follette.
But the Stalwarts within the GOP continued to bedevil La Follette during his years as governor, 1900-1906 - or, as he termed those years in recognition of Belle, "when we were governor." For example, he proposed a railroad commission and a tax on railroad companies as well as a direct primary system for the state, but the Stalwarts in the legislature - in his own party - repeatedly blocked his agenda. So in his 1904 re-election race, when the Stalwarts organized to oppose La Follette's nomination and moved to block any reform legislation, "Fighting Bob" formed the first of his many successful coalitions outside the party, uniting with insurgent Democrats to win some revisions to the railroad tax structure and passage of the direct primary bill. Soon, the Stalwarts were outflanked for the most part . . . and, of course, La Follette went on to form a series of coalitions of his insurgent Progressives and others for years, still leading the state party from afar when he went on to Washington.

And when the coalition brought together his Progressives centered in the state capital with upstate Populists and Milwaukee Socialists, history would be made in Wisconsin, which would set a reform agenda realized nationwide decades later by a fighting Democrat. See: the New Deal. So when you see FDR accused of being a Socialist, there is some logic to it! He picked up some reforms pushed by Socialists and then picked up by the Progressives -- and more reforms tried in those desperate times by another governor of Wisconsin, his son Phil, and the Progressive Party. See: the CCC (although Phil failed in his attempt to get FDR to not give in to the opposition, within his own party, to racial segregation in the federal CCC, sadly).

But I have strayed far from the story of the Stalwarts in the early days of the Progressives; sorry. . . Anyway, what I find fascinating is how effective can be those pols who know when to hold 'em, to hold fast against fools within the party as well as without, and who know when to fold 'em and form effective coalitions. Most effective, it seems, are those pols who put priority on the "effective" part, on real power, even if they never become President . . . as "Fighting Bob" failed to do in the 1920s, when he died soon afterward. But his legacy lived on, because he put "effective" before ego, as well.

Not that the Stalwarts did not come back under different names, as "internecine" might as well be the middle name of any party -- all parties being coalitions, and often uncomfortable ones, of course. The pseudo-Stalwarts continued to bedevil his sons, the governor and the Senator, for decades as well. Btw, Phil is lesser-known as he stayed in the state, but his governorship in the Depression is well worth studying as well. His brother "Young Bob" became better known as a Senator, taking his father's seat in 1925, and one who would cross the aisle as well -- but his career was ended decades later by none other than Joe McCarthy (whose attack style seen later by the nation started in Wisconsin, attacks that were said to have led to "Young Bob's" later suicide, although he also was subject to chronic depression, as had been his father; for this, the book Belle is best and, if flawed, quite revealing for many reasons, as it was written recently by none other than yet another La Follette. . . .

And as for the legacy living on, only one state-level Democrat incumbent survived the GOP sweep yesterday in Wisconsin: A La Follette, a very very distant cousin but one who has benefitted from the surname by serving as state Secretary of State for decades now . . . and, no doubt, for decades to come. The legacy is more stalwart than any of those in the opposition!

except that taking a third of offices sought, for a movement only months old, is something not seen for a long time.

I am reminded of a pol, an ardent abolitionist, who was reluctant to switch from the Whigs until years after a movement became a political party, starting in a small town in the Midwest -- even though that ardent abolitionist applauded all of the party's aims. But a lot of cautious Whigs and pols and others thought that the idea of a new party succeeding at that chaotic time in our history was just, well, crazy and nothing for which to risk one's career with a switch.

That party started in 1854. It took the majority in the House of Representatives two years later. And that pol who finally switched to the new party won the presidency for that party in 1860.

It reminds me of the anti-war movement in the 70's. They tend to fizzle out after a while for one reason or another. And what are they going to do if Romney is the nominee? The GOP elite already know that a tea party candidate can't win nationwide hence the get rid of Palin movement that's afoot.

The tea party was a movement that expressed the real concerns of debt and taxes.

Concerns, pleaze. If they were actually concerned, they might actually take economics seriously, but they don't.

They believe that lowering taxes decrease the deficit, that is crazy X 10.

They believe Obama has increase their taxes which is even crazier because each and everyone of them could easily exam their own tax returns.

It's crazy that the debt GWB racked up, 8 trillion dollars didn't bother a fricken soon-to-be teabagger. It took a black liberal president to wake these clown up, why do you suppose that is ? Easy, because they are crazy.

It's crazy to believe Obama had anything to do with bailing out the banks, that legislation was passed on Bush's watch, yet there isn't a teabagger alive who seems to understand Google, the truth, or even reality, which is again, crazy.

It is absolutely crazy to use the terms socialist, communist, and nazi interchangeably. They are completely different and conflicting ideologies.

It is crazy to claim the Constitution is infallible, then in the same breathe declare at least 5 amendments need repealing.

Of course, if they aren't crazy as you suggest, it means they are so utterly stoooopid, that they appear crazy.

But there is one rather important detail that makes a big difference. The chart is based on the assumption that the current administration should be blamed for the 2009 fiscal year. While this makes sense to a casual observer, it is largely untrue. The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House So is we update the chart to show the Bush fiscal years in green, we can see that Obama is partly right in claiming that he inherited a mess (though Obama actually deserves a small share of the blame for Bush's last deficit since earlier this year he pushed through both an "omnibus" spending bill and the so-called stimulus bill that increased FY2009 spending).

now you want to absolve GWB of any responsibility for any budget passed after 2006 when I've shown that Obama can't be heldresponsible (except as one of 100 Senators) for the 2009 budget, which was signed into law by GWB in 2008.

Thanks for the laughs again, as well as displaying why cliches are to be avoided at all cost.

the shrub and his minions are now and forever completely exonerated from any charges of mismanagement, but, for hither-to-unexplained reasons, sometime in 08, tens-of-thousands of people suddenly became deathly afraid of publicly identifying themselves with the republican party..

it was a completely new movement, composed of disgruntled citizens from every quarter -- that still, when pressed, sees all the evil in the country stemming from the actions of liberal-marxist-socialist-fascist democrats..lol

on the part of those who don't want to be perceived (hence the "Tea Party" name change) as being responsible for giving us a President who left office with a 30% approval rating -- even though they in large part were.

As if the debate about debt and taxes wouldn't have occurred any way, regardless of whether the people-too-embarrassed-to-admit-they-voted-for-Bush existed or not.

bring it to the attention of the folks who wrote the article, instead of getting all paranoid because a mistake has been apparently made that affects the headline, by what, 2%?

Also, who is and isn't a Tea Partier isn't set in stone:

Identifying Tea Party candidates is undoubtedly inexact. Our criteria, generally, was to include anyone who has either been backed by a Tea Party group or has identified themselves as a member of the Tea Party movement. Toward the end of this cycle, however, seemingly every Republican was trying to associate themselves this way. One left off the list was Dino Rossi, despite Jim DeMint endorsing him, since Tea Party groups backed Clint Didier in the primary.

get all het up when Fox News 'cooked the books' with their 'terrorist fist jab' remark by E. D. Hill:

From mediamatters(dot)org:

Teasing a segment on the "gesture everyone seems to interpret differently," Fox News' E.D. Hill said: "A fist bump? A pound? A terrorist fist jab? ... We'll show you some interesting body communication and find out what it really says." In the ensuing discussion with a "body language expert," Hill referred to the "Michelle and Barack Obama fist bump or fist pound," but at no point did she explain her earlier reference to "a terrorist fist jab."

as an example of what obvious "bias" looks like, and you counter that I obviously want to complain about FNC.

but your comparison is not even close.

Well, no, they just made something up, while you're alleging that that evil corporate Socialist MSNBC omitted the names of 2 Tea Party winners because they want to bias their story against them.

the Demos lost 1 in 4 of their Reps

And most of them were Blue Dogs, not many of them were Progressives, and the SCLM doesn't mention that because of their fear of the Far Left, no doubt.

Facts be facts, as much as you may dislike them.

MSNBC was clearly trying to make things look better.

And from which website did you receive this revelation, or did you come up with it on your own?

The Paranoid Style in American Politics, from www.columbia(dot)edu:

But there is a vital difference between the paranoid spokesman in politics and the clinical paranoiac: although they both tend to be overheated, oversuspicious, overaggressive, grandiose, and apocalyptic in expression, the clinical paranoid sees the hostile and conspiratorial world in which he feels himself to be living as directed specifically against him him; whereas the spokesman of the paranoid style finds it directed against a nation, a culture, a way of life whose fate affects not himself alone: but millions of others. Insofar as he does not usually see himself singled out as the individual victim of a personal conspiracy,' he is somewhat more rational and much more disinterested. His seuse that his political passions are unselfish and patriotic, in fact, goes far to intensify his feeling of righteousness and his moral indignation.